Since Forbes hired me in 1995 to write a legal column, I’ve taken advantage of the great freedom the magazine grants its staff, to pursue stories about everything from books to billionaires. I’ve chased South Africa’s first black billionaire through a Cape Town shopping mall while admirers flocked around him, climbed inside the hidden chamber in the home of an antiquarian arms and armor dealer atop San Francisco’s Telegraph Hill, and sipped Chateau Latour with one of Picasso’s grandsons in the Venice art museum of French tycoon François Pinault. I’ve edited the magazine’s Lifestyle section and opinion pieces by the likes of John Bogle and Gordon Bethune. As deputy leadership editor, these days I mostly write about careers and corporate social responsibility. I got my job at Forbes through a brilliant libertarian economist, Susan Lee, whom I used to put on television at MacNeil/Lehrer NewsHour. Before that I covered law and lawyers for journalistic stickler, harsh taskmaster and the best teacher a young reporter could have had, Steven Brill.

Is Obama Still Leading The Way He Was After Newtown?

Now comes the hard part. After President Obama’s two inspiring, emotional speeches following the mass shooting in Newtown, Ct. that left 20 six- and seven-year-olds and eight adults dead, yesterday he made his first public declaration laying out the specifics of how he proposes to prevent another devastating attack on innocent civilians.

I think he made a courageous move, declaring gun control a “central issue” and pledging to use “all the powers of this office” to put new restrictions on gun ownership into effect. He said he would send broad new firearms proposals to Congress by the end of January and he would offer details in his State of the Union speech. He also appointed Vice President Biden to head up an interagency effort to come up with a plan that would prevent another mass attack. “This time, the words need to lead to action,” he said.

The pledge was courageous because gun control has for such a long time been one of the most divisive political issues in this country. At a time when the President is trying to overhaul the tax code and immigration law, he is making a politically risky move by pledging to propose legislation that will surely anger pro-gun legislators whose support he needs for the rest of his legislative agenda.

Though there was some softening among longtime gun proponents directly after the Connecticut shooting, notably by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and Republican Senator Joe Manchin of West Virginia, pro-gun politicians are already speaking out in opposition to the President. Rep. Howard Coble (R-N.C.), has said that new gun control proposals are “probably a rush to judgment” that miss the real issue in the Connecticut shooting, mental health. Rep. Steve King (R-Iowa) has also expressed opposition to new gun control legislation. ““We all had our cap pistols when I was growing up, and that didn’t seem to cause mass murders in the street,” he told an Iowa radio station.

Of course the President isn’t talking about cap pistols, but rather, deadly weapons designed to imitate military attack rifles, with ammunition clips that can hold as many as 100 rounds. He made a further forceful argument for gun restrictions yesterday when he cited multiple incidents of deadly gun violence that have happened just since Friday’s shooting, including police officers killed in Memphis and in Topeka, Kan., a woman shot in Las Vegas, three people in an Alabama hospital who died from gunshot wounds, and a four-year-old killed in a Missouri drive-by shooting. These are all examples, he said, of “violence that we cannot accept as routine.”

One indication that the President is staking out a bold path is that he has already invited criticism on both sides of the issue. Though the conservative media has been mostly quiet on yesterday’s speech, letting its surrogates in Congress speak for them, some corners of the liberal press are giving Obama a hard time for failing to move more quickly. Writing on The Daily Beast yesterday, Michael Tomasky said, “Appointing a task force on guns seems a little mealy-mouthed to me.” Today’s New York Times has an editorial saying that Obama doesn’t need a commission, but rather could have come up with a solid proposal “that afternoon,” including reviving the assault weapons ban that expired in 2004 but strengthening it to avoid loopholes that would allow for the purchase of the type of gun that killed the schoolchildren in Connecticut. Though that state has some of the toughest gun laws in the country, the semiautomatic Bushmaster Adam Lanza used last Friday was legal because it differed from banned AR-15s in its cosmetic details.

Those details highlight how tough the President’s job is, and why it is so laudable that he is trying to move forward on an issue that may seem hopelessly fraught. While I tend to agree with Tomasky and the Times, that it should be obvious that we should ban lethal weapons of all sorts, and do it quickly, the political reality is that the President will have a very tough time marshalling enough support to get any gun legislation passed in his next term. It will surely cost him a great detail of political capital to push that agenda.

But what is the President’s choice? He could move too quickly and fail before he makes any progress. Or he could cave to the pro-gun lobby and, as he has done in the past, make no legislative proposals at all. Or he can use his vice president and his renewed personal commitment to try to come up with politically realistic proposals that have a chance of passing a divided Congress. As much as I want a strict ban on all lethal weapons, I support the President’s commitment to take action, even if it costs him politically.

Post Your Comment

Post Your Reply

Forbes writers have the ability to call out member comments they find particularly interesting. Called-out comments are highlighted across the Forbes network. You'll be notified if your comment is called out.

Comments

I agree with the gun proponents that the real issue is about mental health issues. if we’re to focus on mental health issues alone, it would be an endless battle. we need to focus on ending abusive work and school environments by telling teachers and employers…(people with a capacity for good judgement) to watch for ridicule and put an end to it as soon as they see it and use their good judgement to do some good for both sides. i don’t know anything about why the person shot up all those kids and those teachers, but i’m willing to bet that he ‘snapped’ because of buried issues that no one cared to ask him about. if you want to solve a problem, you find the source of the problem. the problem just isn’t lax gun regulations, its that good people stand by and do nothing. then when something like this happens they cry and scratch their heads and ask why.

Thank you for your comment Mike. I agree that people should be encouraged to reach out to those who seem troubled, but I’m afraid I think it’s unrealistic to imagine that we can reach all of those who have a propensity to violence before they act. Instead I think we should vastly restrict access to lethal weapons.

a typical response from someone who thinks of desperation as a sickness predisposed from birth or by brain chemistry. my counter point would be…if you put a gun ban notice on a building door, do you really think that’s going to stop an emotionally tormented person or robber…whatever…from going in there to kill? killing is what he’s there for so i seriously doubt a sign is going to stop him. it’s the same with gun laws. if he can’t use a gun to kill a person, he’ll use the internet and readily available chemicals bought at your local wal-mart to make a bomb. again i would assert that stopping the cause for the shootings rather than just trying to disarm people is more effective. you sound like someone who thinks they’re too good to take the time of day just to listen to another person’s problems. it probably would cost the government less in resources too. solving the problem is not as simple as restricting gun use, even though i agree that automatic rifles and hand guns should not be available to the public. any object can be used as a lethal weapon if you’re determined enough to use it that way. you sound like a propagandist who has other, untold motivations to push this law.

Good point about people who are motivated to do horrible things getting access to bomb-making materials. Of course we saw that in the Oklahoma City bombing. I’m sorry if you think I come across as a propagandist. I’m just a journalist who happens to have strong opinions about gun control. I’m glad we agree on automatic weapons.

There was a shooting in the early 90′s at the Read Oakes postal service and only 2 people survived. One of them survived because he was near an exit in a back room when the shooting started. The other said the shooter walked right by him and the only thing that set that survivor apart from the victims was that about a month before the shooting; the shooter came to work after having surgery and the man that survived was the only one who had asked him how he was doing. One simple act of kindness saved that mans life. If people would just ask how someone is doing or feeling when they can tell they’re in duress and actually listen, maybe shootings could be prevented completely. Apply harsher gun control and you take away the rights of people who didn’t do anything wrong just because of one person…when the problem could just be solved with compassion and concern rather than taking away anyone’s rights to hunt or own a gun as a form of protection against robbers and car jackers. People need to start caring about how what they and do and say to others can affect the fragile human psyche enough to affect the lives of every single one of their peers. Not to mention that I haven’t heard any counter points as to why gun control is a better option than compassion for others. Especially since a killer will use whatever’s available to complete his mission when guns aren’t available. or he’ll just kill someone who has a gun first and steal theirs so he can shoot up a school or his coworkers. what’s next? a maternaty ward getting shot up because a woman there is getting made fun of over the size her baby belly or the circumstances under which that child was concieved? I hope millions are reading this so they can ask themselves if they should just consider being nicer and more caring towards other people.